Physicists propose mechanism that explains the origins of both dark matter and 'normal' matter

This 3D map shows the large-scale distribution of dark matter, reconstructed from measurements of weak gravitational lensing with the Hubble Space Telescope. The field of view covers about nine times the size of the full moon. Image credit: NASA/ESA/Richard Massey.

(PhysOrg.com) -- Through precise cosmological measurements, scientists know that about 4.6% of the energy of the Universe is made of baryonic matter (normal atoms), about 23% is made of dark matter, and the remaining 72% or so is dark energy. Scientists also know that almost all the baryonic matter in the observable Universe is matter (with a positive baryon charge) rather than antimatter (with a negative baryon charge). But exactly why this matter and energy came to be this way is still an open question. In a recent study, physicists have proposed a new mechanism that can generate both the baryon asymmetry and the dark matter density of the Universe simultaneously.

The scientists, Hooman Davoudiasl from Brookhaven National Laboratory in Upton, New York; David Morrissey and Sean Tulin from TRIUMF in Vancouver, British Columbia; and Kris Sigurdson from the University of British Columbia, also in Vancouver, have published their new proposal in a recent issue of Physical Review Letters. Theyve dubbed the new mechanism "hylogenesis" from the Greek words "hyle," meaning "primordial matter," and "genesis," meaning "origin."

"There are two problems in theoretical physics we are trying to address at once," Sigurdson said. "The baryon asymmetry (why do we have atoms but not antiatoms in the Universe?) has really been a problem since Paul Dirac proposed antimatter in 1928 and it was discovered in 1932. And what is the dark matter? Hints of dark matter have been around since Fritz Zwicky discovered missing mass in the Coma Cluster in 1933, but its identity is still unknown. This mechanism links the formation of atoms and dark matter and helps resolve the baryon asymmetry mystery, as the total dark plus visible baryon balance of the Universe is restored."

In this matter-formation scenario, a new particle X and its antiparticle X-bar (of equal and opposite charge) are produced in the early Universe. X and X-bar are capable of coupling to quarks (the basic components of baryonic matter, e.g., protons and neutrons) in the visible sector as well as particles in a hidden sector (so-called because the particles in it interact only feebly with the visible sector). In this scenario X and X-bar would have been produced when the Universe heated up after inflation, in the first moments after at the start of the big bang.

Later, X and X-bar would decay, partly into visible baryons (specifically, a neutron made up of one up quark and two down quarks) and partly into hidden baryons. As the scientists explain, X decays to neutrons more often than X-bar decays to antineutrons. By the same amount, X-bar decays to hidden antiparticles more than X decays to hidden particles. In this scenario, the quarks would be the baryonic matter that makes up almost everything we see, and the hidden antibaryons would be what we know as dark matter. Through this yin-yang decay pattern, the positive baryon number of the visible matter is in balance with the negative baryon number of the dark matter.

The energy densities of visible and dark matter are really close to each other (differing by a factor of five), Tulin said. In many scenarios, the processes that generate visible and dark matter are unrelated, occurring during widely separated epochs in the early universe through completely different physics. So, this factor of five seems like either a really big coincidence, or it could be a clue that both kinds of matter had a common origin. I think this is the main reason to take seriously these unified models of visible and dark matter genesis.

The physicists predict that this matter-formation mechanism could provide an entirely new way to look for dark matter, since it would leave a signature that could be experimentally detected. As they explain, once in a while a dark matter antiparticle might collide with and annihilate an ordinary atomic particle, releasing a burst of energy. Although this is very rare, there is a chance that experiments on Earth that look for the spontaneous decay of protons could detect dark matter.

We plan to investigate, in more detail, the prospects for dark matter detection in nucleon decay experiments, as this constitutes a distinct signature of our proposal and can open up a new front in the experimental search for dark matter, Davoudiasl said. Other potential signals of hylogenesis can appear in astrophysical observations and perhaps particle accelerator data, and we intend to consider these possibilities in our future work as well.

Related Stories

We’ve all been taught that our bodies, the Earth, and in fact all matter in the universe is composed of tiny building blocks called atoms. Now imagine if this weren’t the case. This mind-bending concept is at the core ...

(PhysOrg.com) -- An international team of scientists, led by University of Maryland astronomer Stacy McGaugh, has found that individual galactic objects have less ordinary matter, relative to dark matter, than does the Universe ...

(PhysOrg.com) -- Dark matter, which contains the "missing mass" that's needed to explain why galaxies stay together, could take any number of forms. The main possible candidates include MACHOS and WIMPS, but there is no shortage ...

(PhysOrg.com) -- "The prevailing belief about dark matter particles is that they should be about 100 or more times heavier than protons," Subir Sarkar tells PhysOrg.com. "However, we were thinking about the possibility of ...

Physicists at the University of British Columbia and TRIUMF have proposed a unified explanation for dark matter and the so-called baryon asymmetry -- the apparent imbalance of matter with positive baryon charge and antimatter ...

Recommended for you

Traditional computers manipulate electrons to turn our keystrokes and Google searches into meaningful actions. But as components of the computer processor shrink to only a few atoms across, those same electrons become unpredictable ...

In a new blow for the futuristic "supersymmetry" theory of the universe's basic anatomy, experts reported fresh evidence Monday of subatomic activity consistent with the mainstream Standard Model of particle physics.

The laws of classical mechanics are independent of the direction of time, but whether the same is true in quantum mechanics has been a subject of debate. While it is agreed that the laws that govern isolated quantum systems ...

(Phys.org)—In an attempt to harvest the kinetic energy of airflow, researchers have demonstrated the ability to harvest energy directly from the vibrations of a flexible, piezoelectric beam placed in a wind tunnel. While ...

70 comments

What are the matter and energy remnants of a matter vs. antimatter annihilation? Can baryonic matter simply be the remnants of symmetry violation of the standard model while dark matter and dark energy are the main remnants?

Although this is very rare, there is a chance that experiments on Earth that look for the spontaneous decay of protons could detect dark matter.

I can't view the original paper but if experiments like this already exist, I'd assume the researchers have already studied them to see if the amount of energy expected from the collision of a dark matter antiparticle and a normal particle is there...

Our most common antimatter is the antineutrino. Clear matter (misnomer "dark matter") is merely compounds of the smallest dipole moments so they cannot interact; the same may go for the missing antimatter.

It never ceases to amaze me how the same scientist who criticizes the notion of an invisible, "undetectable" creator God can then, with a straight face, propose an invisible, undetectable particle as a patch for their failed theories.

Compare the Higgs-mass predictions: the guesses go from 109E-12 GeV to 760E-21 GeV, plus two unconventional theories with 1900 GeV and 10E+18 GeV. There are so many comparably likely models - most of which contain continuous parameters whose values aren't calculable right now - that the whole interval is covered almost uniformly. This similarity of Higgs and dark matter models isn't accidental.

Why not, there's no sharp boundary between more dense space-time foam and condensed clusters of it. But this dense area of vacuum traps another, massive particles into it, which results into composite models of dark matter, composed from lighter and heavier parts (hot & cold dark matter, or even "warm" dark matter). Physicists distinguish them all.

It never ceases to amaze me how the same scientist who criticizes the notion of an invisible, "undetectable" creator God can then, with a straight face, propose an invisible, undetectable particle as a patch for their failed theories.

By this logic are you saying that the invisible, "undetectable" creator ghod has the same validity as the proposed particles?

Skeptic, that was not what he said, nor what I questioned. ;) Forgive the lax terminology.

Dark matter is based on the discrepancy between galactic spin and the gravity of mass of the visible matter contained in the area. I am trying to stay on that sole topic, if I am capable, that there is no need to invent matter when we have no understanding of quantum mechanics to rule out this being a property/quality/ability of normal everyday matter, much as dark energy, attributed to universal expansion, doesn't require the invention of matter to justify its properties.

Our most common antimatter is the antineutrino. Clear matter (misnomer "dark matter") is merely compounds of the smallest dipole moments so they cannot interact; the same may go for the missing antimatter.

So we also just heard that there are 5 to 10 times as many stars than we previously thought, they're just too dim to see. I guess this article was already in the publication pipeline, but why are we still putting effort into arguing about dark matter, when so much normal matter is lying around, previously unrecognized?

So we also just heard that there are 5 to 10 times as many stars than we previously thought, they're just too dim to see. I guess this article was already in the publication pipeline, but why are we still putting effort into arguing about dark matter, when so much normal matter is lying around, previously unrecognized?

I was going to ask the same question in response to that recent article about the abundance of "small" stars being much greater than previously thought, but I thought the question was so obvious as to not be worth asking.

If stars are 3 times more common than previously thought, then right there you have maybe 60% to 80% of the "missing mass" that "Dark Matter" was invented to explain in the first place.

A few more nebulae, a black hole here and there, and viola, no more need for dark matter at all.

KwasniczJ "But this dense area of vacuum..."By definition, the density of a vacuum is zero.And don't give me crap about quantum foam. All virtual particles created by QF are annihilated. Except in the case of Hawking radiation.Is this like being a little pregnant?

It never ceases to amaze me how the same scientist who criticizes the notion of an invisible, "undetectable" creator God can then, with a straight face, propose an invisible, undetectable particle as a patch for their failed theories.

Here's a hint for you: We can observe particles distributed throughout the universe and have evidence to believe they exist. It is therefore much, much easier for me to believe there are particles of dark matter out there than to believe it is a god, whose existence I have never seen any evidence of.

And I would point out, that out of the millions of fake gods humans have erected since time immemorial, why would "the real one" be the god you happened to be born into worshipping? I'm sure the faith of the ancients was stronger than yours in many cases. But you KNOW they were wrong, because it's obviously jesus.

For the people talking about the missing stars I feel I should point out that it didn't even come close to tripling the mass of the observable universe; as well as that eliminating dark matter would require doing a lot more than tripling the observable mass anyway.

Skeptic, that was not what he said, nor what I questioned. ;) Forgive the lax terminology.

Dark matter is based on the discrepancy between galactic spin and the gravity of mass of the visible matter contained in the area. I am trying to stay on that sole topic, if I am capable, that there is no need to invent matter when we have no understanding of quantum mechanics to rule out this being a property/quality/ability of normal everyday matter, much as dark energy, attributed to universal expansion, doesn't require the invention of matter to justify its properties.

But the problem isn't in the spin so much as it is in the lensing effects.

For the people talking about the missing stars I feel I should point out that it didn't even come close to tripling the mass of the observable universe; as well as that eliminating dark matter would require doing a lot more than tripling the observable mass anyway.

The real point was that they just found a significant amount of normal matter by, uh, looking for it. I thought one of the main bits of evidence for dark matter was that these large galaxies and galaxy clusters behaved like they had more matter than we could see. Now that we can see more normal matter, doesn't the whole case for dark matter have to be taken back to formula? What else are we just not seeing yet?

By saying we have to triple the mass of the universe, you are presupposing that everything else in the theory is necessarily correct. But couldn't it instead be true that we need more mass in some localities, but less mass overall (to deal with the countervailing problem of dark energy)?

It never ceases to amaze me how the same scientist who criticizes the notion of an invisible, "undetectable" creator God can then, with a straight face, propose an invisible, undetectable particle as a patch for their failed theories.

Well, you believe in a magical sky god, so your ceaseless amazement at rational and systematic understanding is understandable.

As for "failed theories", you are hardly in a position to make that evaluation. At least this theory is open to testing, which can't be said for your faith.

Now that we can see more normal matter, doesn't the whole case for dark matter have to be taken back to formula?

Sure this requires a tiny adjustment for the WIMP people but isn't a blow of dark matter as a whole. The name is a place holder, finding those stars means we *found* some dark matter [ie some unobserved matter], it's evidence in favor of the original observation.

What else are we just not seeing yet?

I'm sorry are you trying to replace the observation that "there's a lot of matter we can't see" with the claim "there's a lot of matter we can't see"? Do you not see how silly that is?

Besides that just as good an argument for WIMPs as for insanely large numbers of stars or trillions of unicorns hiding inside the stars. It's an argument in favor of everything which makes it an argument that means nothing.

I don't want to de-rail the thread, BUT I believe that there are aspects of reality that suggest design. Problems with current theories of origin etc.

Nooooooo... These aspects only suggest that we don't yet know everything there is to know about reality, or that you don't know everything there is to know about science. No need to draw unwarranted conclusions. Fight your compulsions...

Heh, I don't know whether it was a typo or intentional, but I like it. A mixture of "ghost" and "god". Kinda helps remind the "faithful" that what they're really claiming to believe in, is literally the existence of ghosts.

In fact, this gives me the idea of, from now on, always writing "ghost" whenever referring to "god". IMHO, that's a more precise and transparent expression of the underlying notion... And greater transparency can only benefit discourse.

The recent detection of dim stars doesn't mean the total amount of baryonic matter tripled. Low mass stars already have a small amount of mass compared to the grand total of things, so it won't change the amount that much. Further besides observational data like galactic rotation curves or say the Bullet Cluster for dark matter, the baryonic (regular) matter is pretty tightly constrained by Big Bang Nucleosynthesis as well as the CMB acoustic oscillation peaks.

Neutrinos could contribute something, but they are not believed to be numerous enough, nor non-relativistic enough, nor is there any serious agreement on any mechanisms to not produce relativistic neutrinos in the early universe (i.e. they would be relativistic). So dark matter has many independent lines of evidence, we just haven't observed it yet due to the weak cross-sections. Hopefully thanks to actual experiments we will rule out most theoretical models in the next 10 years.

At least you're brazenly open about your ghostly understanding of all things material. Thanks for so explicitly ratifying my post.

@SteveL,

Matter-antimatter annihilation leaves no particles behind. The result is energy, more specifically high-energy photons (also known as gamma rays.) The energy of the photons is equal to the mass-energy of the pre-annihilation particles, according to E=mc^2.

I stand corrected. I was thinking of simple annihilation, like electron + positron.

However, barring serious charge-parity violation, any secondary particles produced by more complex annihilations (e.g. proton vs. antiproton) will be balanced out by their antiparticles (e.g. neutrinos with antineutrinos, muons with antimuons, etc.) which, if also allowed to annihilate (rather than shooting away in all directions), would eventually (sooner or later, possibly through another cascade of reactions) yield high-energy photons as well.

The point being that photons have the simplest structure/lowest internal entropy of all, and so they're always the final byproduct.

Though there is, currently, a controversy regarding whether neutrinos and antineutrinos can really annihilate, or whether there really is any fundamental difference between the two in the first place (my guess is, they can, and there is...)

It never ceases to amaze me how the same scientist who criticizes the notion of an invisible, "undetectable" creator God can then, with a straight face, propose an invisible, undetectable particle as a patch for their failed theories.

Scientists, unlike priests and true believers can at least show indirect evidence of actual processes occurring in the universe around us. When it comes to a creator God, it seems strange that we are told he exists, he runs the whole universe but cannot show even indirect empirical evidence for his existence. Even something as simple as appearing to everyone and saying "Hi, I'm God." Strange that.

Matter-antimatter annihilation leaves no particles behind. The result is energy, more specifically high-energy photons (also known as gamma rays.) The energy of the photons is equal to the mass-energy of the pre-annihilation particles, according to E=mc^2.

Thank you for your response. What I was leading into was a query if non-baryonic matter (normally undetectable in small quantities due to insufficient energy signature) could result from a matter vs. antimatter interaction. But, I suppose if the math is accurate that the energy produced is exactly equal to the combined mass energy before the interaction - the point would be moot.

Quantum: Spirit is a Latin Vulgate mistranslation of pneýma; there is no "holy breath"; it's vis or wit. But ghosts are a threat to Gods as they can do whatever the latter cannot: http://youtube.com/alysdexia . Exorcists are but scarecrows, and ghosts and so-called demons (in sooth, hýbrids of the ghost of a man and a predator such as a wildcat) don't leave unless they already believe in gods; otherwise they may stay and do whatever they want.

A2G, everything you need to know about Gods and Scriptures is here: http://google.com...mn" . There's even a funny counterpassage to your Psalm line.

“The energy densities of visible and dark matter are really close to each other (differing by a factor of five),” Tulin said. “In many scenarios, the processes that generate visible and dark matter are unrelated, occurring during widely separated epochs in the early universe through completely different physics. So, this factor of five seems like either a really big coincidence, or it could be a clue that both kinds of matter had a common origin."

A five times difference may be close enough to wonder if there is a connection but it is quite a lot if you want to say that dark matter is anti-matter which "balances" out the normal matter. This discrepancy needs a good explanation to make headway.

“The energy densities of visible and dark matter are really close to each other (differing by a factor of five),” Tulin said. “In many scenarios, the processes that generate visible and dark matter are unrelated, occurring during widely separated epochs in the early universe through completely different physics. So, this factor of five seems like either a really big coincidence, or it could be a clue that both kinds of matter had a common origin."

A five times difference may be close enough to wonder if there is a connection but it is quite a lot if you want to say that dark matter is anti-matter which "balances" out the normal matter. This discrepancy needs a good explanation to make headway.

Yea... And by definition, blow job is about blowing....;-) Vacuum is just a historical term. General relativity puts the upper limit for vacuum mass/energy density. Well, and the quantum mechanics puts the lower limit for vacuum density. These two estimations differ in 107 orders of magnitude.

could we just be looking at blobs of denser vacume, a displament pattern at an equillibrium state caused by the visible matter that is dipped into the vacume...? these blob, inertia densities would form choosing the path of least resistance and thus prefferably as a dispersed halo and thus for instance the Coma cluster wich is the original example of too much missing matter to keep the cluster together, not necessarely would be held together by a mechanism of additional pulling gravity from dark matter, but rather by inertia accumalation on the outer edges of the cluster providing a pushing/resistive rather than pulling force holding the cluster together

Actually, most of the New Testament was written in Greek, and the word translated "Spirit" is almost always from "Pneuma," which of course means "Breath" literally.

Correct.

It would be interesting if for once the atheist could refrain from just blatantly lying about the facts.

It's even more interesting that you don't see the fact that the "Holy Spirit" is simply the action of breathing or the presence of breathable air, and "giving up the ghost" would be a description of the final tidal breath.

if we assume that gravity is an effect from differential in surrounding backpressure rather mass pulling from the center outward, then you could probably deal with the infinite singularity problem of black holes, if we regard the mass at the center causing massive vacume displacement in the direct vicinity, effectively providing a frictionless path for new mass to be pushed in by backpressure, this has more room for not having to share with dense vacume and thus gets around the problem of infinite small volumes/densities. One of the shocking conclusions of this train of thought is that only particles but no photons could enter the event horizon as they have trouble finding particles or vacume of sufficient density to use for riding on top as a wave

my crackpot prediction is that i you shine a pocket light on a naked black hole (without any accretion disk), the light wouldnt dissappear but instead be reflected like in a mirror, rotation of the black hole and frame dragging of space around the black hole might cause these photons to be warped while reflected iow not straight back to the source but dragged more forward and possible more to the poles (like thoise relativistic jets favout). This is why you might want to shine the pocketlight from the side to get it to bounce back to earth telescope, trouble is we have trouble getting pocketlight there out of our direct line of side, but maybe photons of a neighbouring supernova could be relayed

It is clear that the "Holy Spirit" is a person, a "He", also referred to as the "Comforter" (Paraklete) "one called beside to help".

Context.

So anyway, the attempts to discredit this as some sort of bad translation are shown to be in error due to CONTEXT of the passages, which shows that the "Spirit" is indeed referring to a "person" who is that aspect of the eternal Godhead, which is the Holy Spirit.

Who really cares about the translation of the word spirit. To be a believer one obviously has to “believe” or “buy in” to the stories written by mankind describing their deity/s, god/s, spirit/s, etc. There are many who refuse to believe these stories, and in the existence of deity/s, god/s, spirit/s, etc., for good reason. Believers can’t prove the existence of what they believe in, all they can do is believe in old stories, that belief not making those stories or the existence of deity/s god/s spirit/s a fact. If one believes something to be true they have the burden of proof, otherwise it’s just a lot of hot pneuma.

So I've just started reading "Reinventing Gravity" by John Moffat. In the forward he claims to have extended / replaced Einstein's theories on gravity with a set of equations which eliminate the need for dark matter and energy, and which eliminate the singularity. Has anyone formed any opinions of this work?

In the comments here I've read this a couple of times now so I'll post this calculation.If one needs 100% matter for our current theories to work (I'm not saying they do or do not) One sees 5% matter and then concludes that the rest is hidden. If that same scientist then discovers that the amount of dim stars is about three times bigger. For how much of the needed matter would that account. You're right about 10 to 15 %. So either this dark matter/energy is out there or our theories are wrong. Both cannot be false.

One sees 5% matter and then concludes that the rest is hidden. If that same scientist then discovers that the amount of dim stars is about three times bigger. For how much of the needed matter would that account.

Again, zero.

We have the matter caluclations based on a very complex calculation that shows the distribution of baryonic matter compared to observed matter, observed rotation speeds of galaxies and solar systems, etc.

Basically these are gravity calculation. So unless someone determines that gravity doesn't follow the inverse square this revelation identifies exactly zero percent of the missing matter and simply points out what a larger percentage of the already counted baryonic matter has arranged itself in.

We've gone from, "I have 3 dollars in change in my pocket" to "I have two singles, and 4 quarters in my pocket."

energy is the origin of mattercondensation of energy ( undefined dimentional entities) result in all known and yet to be know matter dark matter ( is a an almost dimentionless energy i.e a minimal dynamic energy) it tends to suck everything in to restore dimention and restore it's dynamics( black holes)it's aloop of eventsbig bang is only a part of the story the part of the universe we know is expanding bcus the dimentionless enegr sucked the cconstitiuents of other parts of the universe we are into the process of expansion that will come to a halt when ENOGH IS SUCKED IN)void does not exist WITH IN THE UNIVERSElike the microtubules of the cell the universe channels energy and enery products every whereminimal number dimentions are 3maximum is coutless ( dimentions are being created and engulfed on instant basis thats it

Lexington: Matter/antimatter reactions produce particles along with the energy. Neutrinos are one product, so are muons.

PinkElephant: However, barring serious charge-parity violation, any secondary particles produced by more complex annihilations (e.g. proton vs. antiproton) will be balanced out by their antiparticles (e.g. neutrinos with antineutrinos, muons with antimuons, etc.) which, if also allowed to annihilate (rather than shooting away in all directions), would eventually (sooner or later, possibly through another cascade of reactions) yield high-energy photons as well

Could non-baryonic matter be made up of loose neutrinos, muons, antineutrinos, anti-muons, etc.? Also, how does a sub atomic particle decay to a higher energy state (high energy photon)?

It is clear that the "Holy Spirit" is a person, a "He", also referred to as the "Comforter" (Paraklete) "one called beside to help".

As said above, many more names than that exist, but beyond that, when patriarchial societies anthropomorphize natural events, typically they're male in nature, especially the in the proto-judiac groups.

So anyway, the attempts to discredit this as some sort of bad translation are shown to be in error due to CONTEXT of the passages, which shows that the "Spirit" is indeed referring to a "person" who is that aspect of the eternal Godhead, which is the Holy Spirit.

The context does not imply "air" or "wind".

That's based entirely on what you were taught by a festering virginal dog-collared vampire.

So I've just started reading "Reinventing Gravity" by John Moffat. In the forward he claims to have extended / replaced Einstein's theories on gravity with a set of equations which eliminate the need for dark matter and energy, and which eliminate the singularity. Has anyone formed any opinions of this work?

I hadn't, but I did some research. I don't place much stock in his theory. The book was published in 2008 but hasn't exactly set the physics community alight. Part of the reason is that to get rid of dark matter and make the equations fit observations he proposes a variable speed of light, which has no observational support, unlike dark matter (eg, gravitational lensing).

Just a reminder - I'm sure most of you are already well aware - religious belief systems are sypmtoms of psychosis. Trying to debate the subject with a psycho is much like arguing with a drunk. The drunk loves it and there is no future in it for the mentally healthy.

Just a reminder - I'm sure most of you are already well aware - religious belief systems are sypmtoms of psychosis.

You wanted to express that according to your conviction every believer is a psycho?That would be a daring generalization as you can't know - let alone analyze - more than 2 billion people personally.

Trying to debate the subject with a psycho is much like arguing with a drunk. The drunk loves it and there is no future in it for the mentally healthy.

You obviously didn't argue very often and/or with many drunks. Some of them are very understanding when a friend tells them better not to drive.

There's another flaw in your string of characters: How could there be dropouts from religion if they all were psychos unable to be argued with? By what mechanism did they lose their religion then? A miracle?

If dark matter exists it must be structured in som way es baryonic matter.Suppose that it floats in the space far away from baryionic matter.If dark matter is antimatter ofcourse.Why it should be like this?Why antimatter doas not anahilate with matter in the universe on the large scale?Probably because distribution of the matter and antimatter in the universe is not casual.Might be that between the matter and animatter in the terms of the dimensions of the galaxies and universe there is not so simple long distance interaction.What if exists even repulsive force between matter and antimatter over exact distance?Might be that could explain distribution of the dark matter in the universe.What if dark matter absorbes much of photons released by baryionic stars?What if there is radiation wich could be detected,gama bursts of faint nature distributed on certain topografic way?It could be,detection of such a gamma bursts,direct prooff that dark matter is antimatter!

Please sign in to add a comment.
Registration is free, and takes less than a minute.
Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.